Design evolution reports/course architectural histories

[TEPaul]

About seven years ago I wrote a design evolution report for my golf course tracking basically everything that was done to the course architecturally from its beginning in 1916 until 1999.

The design evolution report or architectural history of the course was probably 30-40 pages complete with hole by hole evolutions, the architects involved over the years with a brief bio of them and some of their significant courses and a good stagger of aerial photos of my course.

Nobody asked me to do it, I just started doing it one day after being transfixed by some old aerials I found of the course. The president of the club saw the report and had it published for all the club's members. It may've helped inspire our restoration and it seems to have regenerated an interest in our architects and our course's architecture.

It was only about the evolution of the course's architecture, nothing more.

I haven't really thought about it but I don't think I can recall seeing anything quite like that anywhere else or of any other course.

Can any of you?

In any case, the USGA may be interested in fostering the creation of these kinds of design evolution reports or complete architectural histories amongst clubs of some significant courses or maybe courses generally.

Who's interested in getting involved and what would you be interested in contributing?

All I can guarantee you is the pay will totally suck.  

[wsmorrison]

I'll get you a copy of the digital presentation that Dave Staebler made for Rolling Green if you cannot find yours.  I'm sure you've seen it before and it is a pretty good model for a photographic demonstration of course evolution in PowerPoint.  You should call him, I'm sure he wouldn't mind doing an actual write-up of the course (1976 Women's Open).

The design evolution reports we compiled in the Flynn book can be used (after publication?) if you think they'd be useful.  There's quite a large number of USGA events that have been played over the 50-something Flynn course designs and redesigns.

[Kyle Harris]

Doing similar things with Penn State and hopefully helping out with Glen Ridge's.

I'd be interested in being a hired gun, that's for sure. Any sort of research or groundwork.

[BCrosby]

TEP -

As noted, Dave Staebler's presentation of Rolling Green is very good. Wayne's Flynn evolution histories are necessarily brief but very good. I wrote one for Athens CC. But other than those, I don't know of any architectural evolution pieces.

Their absence from the scene is - I think - a problem for gca. They will generate interest in gca and provide a much needed body of information for research. Having more of them would be a very, very good thing for both gca and the architects that practice it.

They would also be the centerpiece for a gca archive.

The problem is that archtiects don't have the time or training to do the research for these histories. There are also a number of fairly obvious conflicts of interest when archtiects do these little histories.

If the USGA or others get serious about a gca archive, my hope is that they initiate some of these design evolution studies at more famous courses. And work down the food chaim from there.

But I also think that the people that actually do these studies should not be architects. The danger is that they will be perceived as positioning themselves to do restorations or renovations on the courses being studied. The researchers and writers should have no financial or professional stake in their projects.

There's lots more to think about on this topic.

Bob  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

My research covers most of the mid-Atlantic and while it is nowhere near as deep and detailed as yours for GM, it does cover the architectural attributions of a hell of a lot of golf courses, both renowned and unknown.

I've been looking for a home for this stuff for a number of years, and originally sent it off to both Ron Whitten and Geoffrey Cornish for inclusion in later editions of "THe Architects of Golf".   Although both were very nice in response, I did get the feeling that there wouldn't be any further updates to that tome.

So, as we talked about prior, count me in.   My 12-hour workdays should be over by October and I'll be able to help to a far greater degree than in recent months.

[ForkaB]

Tom

You could look to the left of this page and check out what I wrote 5-6 years ago on "The Architectural Evolution of Royal Dornoch."  Amazingly, I didn't know you then or even know about the estimably similar work you did re GMGC!

Rich

[T_MacWood]

I've written one for GCGC and Quaker Ridge, and sort of a devolution of Ohio State. There would be a certain irony in having the USGA initiate studies of famous courses seeing that they have been involved - directly or indirectly - in the redesign of so many.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

If you wrote a design evolution report for GCGC where is it now and what is or has the club done with it or about it? Do you know Mel Lucas? Did you speak with him when you wrote a design evolution report for GCGC and if not, why not?

Do you know, for instance, if the inline rolls on the old 12th green were cut to green space or rough and when? If someone is even thinking about restoring that hole that type of information is probably more than essential.

The major point of complete design evolution reports is they are absolutely essential to an understanding of what to restore or if something is practicable to restore. They are essential to the realities of the decision making process, and that involves playability and directly effects both the maintenance department and the club membership.

To even remotely understand the latter two entities, and the importance of both in restoration projects, one pretty much needs to get directly involved with the club.

[TEPaul]

"There would be a certain irony in having the USGA initiate studies of famous courses seeing that they have been involved - directly or indirectly - in the redesign of so many."

Tom MacWood:

You may look at that as 'a certain irony' but I look at it as an excellent opportunity to get things moving in a better direction both within and without the USGA in the future.

This is all part and parcel of what I sometimes feel is a modus operandi on this website.

The time for just complaining about what happened in the past needs to cease and the time to actually get involved and do something positive about it in the future is both here and now.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I have no idea what the club has done with my design history/report. I'm not sure if I've met Mel Lucas or not, but I didn't speak to him before I wrote it (or anyone else for that matter).

Based on the information I've been able to find the mounds were always green space.

The major point of complete design evolution reports is they are absolutely essential to an understanding of what to restore or if something is practicable to restore. They are essential to the realities of the decision making process, and that involves playability and directly effects both the maintenance department and the club membership.

To even remotely understand the latter two entities, and the importance of both in restoration projects, one pretty much needs to get directly involved with the club.

Well then, I guess I haven't written any design evolutions after all. Scratch my initial post.

[Dunlop_White]

I have basically done ours at Old Town and Roaring Gap -- haven't made a cent on it ....in fact they've both cost me a lot of time.....and I'll be glad to contribute these to the USGA or whomever is interested.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If a club is doing a master plan, this kind of comprehensive evolution report is part of it, at least it is in the plans we do?    

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Does the architectural report you did for GCGC reflect when and why various things were changed architecturally over the years?

There is a old photo hanging in the dining-room at GCGC that shows quite clearly that the rolls in #12 were not greenspace (when that photo was taken).

[T_MacWood]

TE
Yes, the report documented the whens and whys of most of the changes.  GCGC is fortunate in that the architects involved (Travis and Emmet in particular) wrote extensively about the changes they made.

I've seen a series of photos of the 12th beginning in 1906, including every decade but the 40s (10s, 20s, 30s and 50s) and they all show the mounds as green-space.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Well, then I just can't imagine why that photo hanging in the dinning-room shows those rolls not as greenspace. Maybe it's just a fake and someone hung it in there just to confuse people.  

In any case, I'm pretty sure Mel Lucas would know all about them and what they were used as at any point in time.

A comprehensive design evolution report should hopefully also track the reasons the club changed that green. In your couple of hours at GCGC were you able to find that out?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

As you probably know I'm the consultant for Garden City Golf Club.

My first report for the club fifteen years ago was quite lengthy and covered a lot of the architectural history, although it was not written specifically as such -- I was making recommendations along the way.  As background I had a brief architectural history from the club historian at the time, but it was not complete by any means.  As you know, few were, fifteen years ago.

Interesting thought to ask Mel Lucas about the old greens, even though he was the one who blew them up, so his memory might be a bit biased about them.

PS  In the only aerial photos I've seen of the old 12th green, the mounds were within the putting surface.  It's possible they were mowed at more like collar height, the color distinction on such a slope would be difficult to determine from an aerial view, but they were certainly within the green.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Go into the dinning-room and over to the far left side and take a look at that old photo of the old 12th for yourself.

If one wants to truly understand the history and evolution of the old 12th green it would probably be wise to talk to the man who was responsible for blowing it up, as you say, don't you think?  There's no telling what one might learn. I rather doubt he blew the thing up on his own without someone from the club, like the membership, encouraging him to do so.  

But who the hell knows, perhaps architectural purists just don't want to know what he might have to say about it, such as perhaps those "greenspace" inline rolls may've become virtually unmaintainable as greenspace.  

[Jason Topp]

Always willing to expand on this if there is interest -

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=21451;start=msg388974#msg388974

[T_MacWood]

Jason
I remember that thread...it was enlightening.

TE
If and when they restore #12 I hope they make the mounds part of the green-space as Travis intended. It may not be practical to cut the mounds at the same height as the main green surface but even a fringe-like surface would work well IMO. That is probably what the greens were like in 1906 anyway.

[Neil_Crafter]

Dr John Green of Royal Melbourne has written detailed design evolution reports for both the East and West courses on a hole by hole basis, as well as the original Sandringham courses in their various guises - very interesting stuff. I'v also assisted in one at Glenelg Golf Club here in Adelaide where I am the consultant architect - that one one was done as a timeline rather than hole by hole. Tom Paul kindly sent me a copy of the one he prepared for Gulph Mills and that helped to inspire the one that was done at Glenelg, Thanks Tom
cheers Neil

[Phil_the_Author]

Something to consider for whoever works on these. They MUST write these in a non-judgmental, antiseptic vein.

For example, editorial staements that judge the quality of the work will taint the veracity of what is being reported. None who work and develop these will want a future researcher to ignore the facts that are recorded because they believe the recorder had a hidden agenda. We find comments of this nature quite often on this site when conflicting views of work that has been done is discussed.

Personal interpretations as to reasons for changes should also be guarded against. Only where an architect has recorded this information should it be included.

[TEPaul]

"TE
If and when they restore #12 I hope they make the mounds part of the green-space as Travis intended. It may not be practical to cut the mounds at the same height as the main green surface but even a fringe-like surface would work well IMO. That is probably what the greens were like in 1906 anyway."

Tom MacWood:

IF they restore the 12th green to what it used to be and they restore those inline rolls to greenspace how about if they attempt to set contours on those inline rolls that would perform with today's greenspeeds about the same way the old contours on those rolls performed with the greenspeeds of Emmett and Travis's time? If they were restored to greenspace don't you think that would be more realistic in today's world and in today's realities in golf?